Nonsense: Filming a movie being filmed violates copyright

Yet again, Viacom strikes with a totally insane copyright claim – on a clip which shows few seconds of the making of Transformers 3, which happened in public.


Paramount recently began the filming of Transformers 3 in LA, for which Michael Bay and his crew were filming an action shot of flipping a smart car down an alley. Ben Brown and Micki Krimmel who work in a building on the same alley were obviously excited to see this happen. Just like you or I would do, they got their iPhones out, to film a very small clip. Both of them uploaded their clips to YouTube.

Doesn’t this all sound very normal to you? Well no, Viacom (parent company of Paramount) issued a take down notice to Ben Brown, and YouTube took down the clip, claiming “matched third party content”. The ridiculousness of this claim is just multi-fold. How could a clip of a movie being filmed, which is not finished, match the movie (to be logical enough to issue a DMCA claim)? How can footage being shot in a public space violate copyright ever?

What is even more ridiculous is that Ben’s clip was taken down, while Micki’s clip (embedded below) still resides on YouTube. Micki thinks that, it might be due to the fact that Ben’s clip was picked up by several blogs and attracted a lot of views, thereby triggering the copyright hawks while her clip was not attracting them. However, now that Ben’s clip is not available, Micki’s clip is getting the views and soon there will be an answer to see if a certain number of views auto triggers these ridiculous take down notices.

It should here be recalled that Viacom is already well known for issuing take down notices for clips it has no ownership on and also uploading clips (by its employees) just to make false copyright infringement claims.


Bookmark and Share

Related Posts

May 15, 2010

Category: Piracy, Technoglogy

Tags: , , , ,

  • Extremium
    Upon release of the movie, the iPhone operator (Miki?) should make a counter claim that Transfornicators 3 is an infringement of their "movie".
  • wikiBuddha
    There's a lot to say. First, I'm inclined to wonder why we're not informed about these "laws" until they've been broken. Why don't I get notices when new laws are implemented that affect me? Why do I have to scour congressional records to figure out what I can and can't do, in a free country.

    Likely knowing in advance the date and time of the scene's recording, I would have been much more suave about it and would have set it up so it was like I was filming something unrelated and made it seem like I caught the filming accidentally...

    For where things stands, I would be interested if they could fight the request for removal based on “matched third party content”. There may be more to it, but if the "content" wasn't listed, I would just toss the letter.

    I'd be very interested to look at the letter of the law. Does content refer to the actual subjects and objects being recorded or does it refer to the actual content of media? If it refers to the content of media, then I would argue that the iphone recording(s) would not match the recordings of the studio, except by what was being recorded. Angles, quality and source of origination do not match. What is the definition of "matching"?

    I also wonder if the owners of the iphone videos could pull a fast one on the studio... Could they wait until the movie comes out, then file a removal claim when their building is shown in the movie, because they just happened to be filming a documentary on the view from their office window and the office building appears in the movie? If they succeeded, this would cost the studio significant mula.
  • First of all, everyone is responsible for knowing applicable law. Ignorance of law is not a defense. It's not the government's job to tutor every citizen on every law that exist on the books. Copyright laws date back 300 years. It's not exactly something new.

    You're also over thinking it. Youtube cannot decide anything. They get a properly formatted take down notice, they are obligated by law to remove the content. They cannot interpret the law. If they do, they will become liable for their actions. Google DMCA or OCILLA and do a little reading.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act
  • fangmanioc
    I think the "fair use" part is that people are allowed to report on events and act as amateur reporters. So, if the clips are illustratiing some news, and they keep the Viacom-IP content to a minimum, I would layman's-guess that it is fair use. I think for fair use to apply, it just has to be obvious that you are creating something new and not just ripping off Viacom.
  • Kerrick
    I have now seen more of Transformers 3 than I was ever planning on seeing.
  • Extremium
    Ditto
  • The key here is that they distributed the content, not that they filmed it.
  • Lots of people misunderstanding copyright here.

    Public or private is not the issue. A public work of art is copyrighted. Being seen in public does not remove copyright.

    There is some validity to the claim of copyright here because the scene is an original creation by the studio and they own the copyright to the entire scene as created by them. They can also restrict photography because they have paid for a permit to shoot the film in a public space. Just like a concert promoter can restrict access, photography, and alcohol if they rent a public space to hold a concert.

    Also, issuing a DMCA takedown notice does not mean the work is copyrighted. It is only a claim. Youtube is obligated by law to act on all properly formatted DMCA take down notices. They have no choice. They also have no obligation to remove other similar videos in the absence of a take down notice. Doing so may weaken their safe harbor protection. The owner of the video can file a counter notice. It takes 5 minutes and cost nothing. At that point, Youtube must restore the video and the studio has 21 days to file a lawsuit or it will stay.
  • LaughingLawyer
    In a sense of right to privacy, if they are filming in public, they give up their right for privacy. If privacy is assumed, such as being in your home, or a closed space, then it may violate some laws.

    Most film sets block off several streets with a large block radius because of this. You simply can't sue someone for shooting video of something that is happening in public.

    This has to be a PR stunt, as this would be dismissed almost immediately after filed.
  • Because it wast public it was an open set, notices would be placed at both ends of the street and for the duration of the shoot the street is essentially private property. Please talk to someone who actually works in the industry before posting sensationalist headlines.
  • greg
    if the stage was set and paid for by a production studio it's very grey because this is in a public area. Private closed lots are not cool.
  • ASIM
    they are filming from their own property out their own window. can I sue google for snapping pictures from the public street of my very private yard? can a paparazzi take pictures of a private event from public land?
  • If the road was an open set that the production company has paid the city for then yes you could be sued for snapping pictures on the street which for the duration of the shoot belongs to the production company.
  • Name to Comment
    How is this DMCA? It seems to be straight up copyright infringement.

    And that's what it is--copyright infringement. Take a play under copyright. Even if performed publicly, outside, the owner of the copyright has exclusive rights to reproduce that content; thus, even if performed publicly, filming that play would be a violation of copyright. A movie's exactly the same there.

    While I'd much prefer to see much less strict copyright law, unless this somehow falls under some very new case of "fair use" the clips are copyright infringement.
  • ASIM
    you can copyright car crashes now? can they sue me for taking a dump? would'nt that be infringement on transformers 2?
  • viacomsuck
    that sort of activity is 1 of the main reasons this world is as messed up as it is, public is public this could be any film, all it is is a car getting chucked across an alley..these companies make hundreds of millions every year and still complain about stuff like this its pathetic
  • We should be extremely critical of what companies like Viacom do here. They will be quick to abuse existing laws to grab rights that are not theirs.
  • well i dont even know thats transformers 3 clip.everything what is see is little car crashed.so where viacom see copyright ;]?
blog comments powered by Disqus